"We the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much, with so little, for so long, we are now qualified to do anything, with nothing" By Konstantin Josef Jireček, a Czech historian, diplomat and slavist.

Wednesday, September 11, 2019 (PW) — When I read a
tripartite agreement signed by Gen. Thomas Cirilo; Gen. Pagan Amum Okiech; and
Gen. Paul Malong Awan who represented their parties of SSNDA; R-SPLM, and SSUF
in the Netherlands on August 30th 2019, it was a surprise to see Gen.
Thomas Cirilo Swaka succumbing to the philosophy of “the enemy of my enemy is
my friend”. At last he has come to realization that joining hands with a
political foe is strength. NAS has swallowed its bitter pills of describing some
Equatorians who join hands with Gen. Paul Malong weirdly. When the FDS were
arrested in Juba and kept in detention for couple of weeks, it was Dr. Riak
Machar who heralded for their release, but after they were released, they
abandoned him and treated him as a war monger disregarding the effort he did
for them. Their decision has led to prolongation of the war. Had they join
hands together with Dr. Riak Machar; the war would have ended long time ago.
They haven’t use the philosophy of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

When Dr. Riak Machar
was detained in South Africa, the SPLM-IO became a standstill Movement. In this
period, on 27th March 2018, SSUF conceives eleven members from Bahr
el Ghazal, Equatoria and Upper Nile to form a revolutionary Movement. These
eleven members constitute the founding body of SSUF/A. On 28th March
2018, SSUF gave birth to a new Movement called “South Sudan united Front and
Army (SSUF/A)” in Nairobi, Kenya. After its formation, the members chose Gen.
Paul Malong Awan from greater Bahr el Ghazal as Chairman and commander in Chief.
SSUF/A was committed to remove the regime in Juba militarily and the task
requests joint efforts from all opposition forces which took arms against Juba regime.
Gen. Paul Malong relied heavily to make alliance with Gen. Pagan Amum Okiech;
Gen. Oyai Deng Ajak; and Gen Thomas Cirilo including the non armed groups headed
by Gabriel Sangsong Sang. There wasIntellectual
resistance from SSOA members who described Gen. Malong as an uneducated leader
to ally with. Besides, they were afraid of being targeted by TROIKA on the
issue of sanction of Gen Paul Malong. The long awaited Generals made SSUF/A a standstill
Mill which delayed the Military and political structures. This contributed to the
founding members of SSUF leaving the Movement like Ambassador Telar, Lino
Ajang, Clement Maring, Ambassador Lumumba, Elly Magok, Ambassador Ayok, and
Simon Wieu, later followed by Ustaz Lewis Anei.

The SSOA groups headed
by Gabriel Sangsong sang have chosen a non-violent approach to address the conflict
in South Sudan and they were not ready to join hands with Gen Paul Malong, a
person viewed like an owl in the company of birds. SSOA was over taken by the peace
overtone in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. In SSOA consortium, only Gabriel Sangsong
Sang had the collaborative view to include SSUF into peace talks, but the rest
of SSOA members vehemently rejected inclusion of SSUF into peace talks. Ninety-nine percent of former SSOA members
vehemently rejected SSUF’s participation in peace talks and Bakosoro boys were
not happy with the activities of Mathiang Anyor Forces in Western Equatoria. Thomas
Cirilo’s NAS wanted Gen. Paul Malong to fight in Bahr el Ghazal and leave
Equatoria for NAS; he wanted SSUF and NAS to cooperate on logistic aspects and
they should converge in Juba. This position is procrastinating because the seat
of the power is not in Bahr el Ghazal but in Juba. Gen. Thomas Cirilo thinks he
can remove the regime in Juba alone. SSUF then resisted the regime alone after
been denied to participate in peace talks by IGAD, TROIKA and SSOA.

It was only Gabriel
Sangsong Sang who cooperated with SSUF members who were sent to Addis Ababa to
participate in the peace talks. SSUF committee was not allowed to participate
in the peace talks; SSUF members only attended the governance and security workshop
which was organized by IGAD prior to the actual days of the peace talks. With
cooperation of Hon. Gabriel Sangsong Sang, one member of SSUF Hon. Elly Magok
fully attended the peace talks to the end. Gabriel Sangsong Sang was the only
leader among SSOA who held an inclusive view to bring sustainable peace in the
country, but the rest of the leaders were only greedily contented with their positions
in Juba.

Malong as a person made
many mistakes by implementing the Jieng Council of Elders agenda when he was
the General Chief of Staff under President Kiir in Juba which made many people
to reject his Movement as the savage memories of the Mathiang Anyor militia in
Equatoria and in upper Nile Regions were fresh in their minds. The South Sudanese
held Gen. Paul Malong as the catalyst for maiming people in South Sudan and for
maintaining President Salva Kiir Mayardit in power, but again the opposing leaders
didn’t realize the importance of making alliance with an enemy to remove a
common enemy. They did not conceive the ancient proverb which says: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.The proverb suggests that two
opposing parties even if they are enemies of themselves can work together
against their common enemy.

In World War II, this
concept was used by the Americans, British and Russians who teamed up against
Hitler. The idea of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” functions in various
guises as foreign policy by Allied powers during the Second World War. In Europe,
tension was common between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union. Despite
their inherent differences, they recognized a need to work together to meet the
threat of Nazi aggression under leadership of Adolf Hitler. Both US President
Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill were wary of
the Soviet Union under the leadership of Joseph Stalin. However, both developed
policies with an understanding that Soviet cooperation was necessary for the Allied
war effort to succeed.

Similar alliance could
have been forged between SPLM-IO, FDs, SSOA and SSUF against the regime in
Juba, but they nurtured their differences to tear them apart which strengthened
the grip of the regime in Juba to defeat them all. Gen. Paul Malong after been removed
from power automatically became an enemy of the regime. Smart Revolutionaries could
have use the philosophy of an enemy of my enemy is my friend to ally with him
regardless of their differences they harbor to remove the regime in Juba. The
crimes of Gen. Paul Malong could be address when peace is at hand in the
country, but greedy leaders could not comprehend this sense. When peace is at
hand, all criminals will be exposed including those who are hiding behind the
curtain.

When the author
joined hands with Gen. Paul Malong in 2018 to fight the regime in Juba, it was based
on the notion that the enemy of my enemy is my friend which Gen. Thomas has now
realized, there was nothing common apart from this view, but some members of
NAS conjoined with Hakim Dario of PDM vilified the Equatorians in SSUF as followers
of Dinka, enemies of Equatoria, traitors, betrayers, Satans, Devils, opportunists,
bought, sellouts, partners in crime. Now that Gen Thomas Cirilo who represented
SSDA has join hands with Gen. Paul Malong, Are they followers of Dinka and
enemies of Equatoria? Are they traitors and betrayers of Equatorians? Are they Satans
and devils? Are they opportunists? Are
they bought by Malong? Are they sellouts and partners in crime? Isn’t that
politics? Have they forgotten that politics is a game? What is the gameness of
politics? Do they play the game with angels or with Devils? Well, what do we say then in this rejoining? “A dog returns to its vomit” and “A washed pig returns to the mud”. Henceforth,
after this nuptial with Gen. Paul Malong, let the big mouth hypocrites shut up
describing people with variant views unfairly. The realization of coming
together is strength. Therefore, since the tripartite alliance aims for peace, it
is welcome. Al salaam Aleichum!

The author is a
former SSUF/A senior member, Former Deputy Governor, Former Minister of Education,
Former Commissioner. He lives in Kampala, can be reach on warun1maring@gmail.com.

The opinion expressed
here is solely the view of the writer. The veracity of any claim made is the
responsibility of the author, not PaanLuel Wël Media (PW) website. If you want
to submit an opinion article, commentary or news analysis, please email it to
paanluel2011@gmail.com. PaanLuel Wël Media (PW) website do reserve the right to
edit or reject material before publication. Please include your full name, a
short biography, email address, city and the country you are writing from.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Nicely written article, but the views expressed here reflect the concealed hatred, from a former Senior Govt official of the Govt SS, of some SS members/groups.

Why linked Maloung and his former roles/duties to Jieny instead of seeing this as of head of the army implementing state security policies – to prevent and deter rebellion and violent: things that are very common to disgruntled and dismissed former govt’s official of SS who are the real enemies of the people of the SS.

When they (former Govt’s officers) are in The Govt – and their big luxurious office-chairs and under performing, they are very happy but when removed (a common thing all of the world) they become disgruntled – releasing their satanic-primitive nurture of using tribes to commit violence against the people so that they are again appeased and rewarded for their violence or inciting violence so that they are returned to govt’s positions.

The author, though tries to conceal his motives, has revealed this gruesome nurture of former SS govt officials.

There is nothing evil than calling for violence against vulnerable people of SS, and Maloung, though claimed to be uneducated but better than those claiming to be educated, should be very careful and conscious of these primitive- hatred individuals.

You cannot compare the WWII – Cold War Western foreign policies against state internal rebellion. Those policies were (and still used) used to defeat the feared State or ideology and to promote the common values of the Western- colonial societies.

No Western States allow any form of internal rebellious or dissent, and if any then it is savagely and cruelly dealt with very quickly so that it is removed, contained and used as a deterrent against future crime and violence. The author is very stupid to use this as an example of encouraging collective violence against their own govt and vulnerable people of SS.